|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Religion Resource Center |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
by Steve Farrell
Part 8: My Country, My President, My Party, Come Hell or High Water! Two hundred twenty-five years ago, a "foolish, wicked, and improper king" was brought to a trial of sorts for wanton disregard of the laws of England and the rights of his subjects in British America. His sins were many. Chief among them was his unequal application of the law, and listed also among his offenses was "obstruction of justice." Rights and privileges, it seemed, applied only to the king, his Cabinet, his ambassadors, his Parliament, and selected classes of men in England -- but not at all to the colonists. In the king's mind, it was his divine prerogative to manipulate the law to his advantage, any time and in any way he saw fit. This he did. The colonists were less than delighted. The illegitimacy of the king's position was clear, and the trend toward tyranny was ominous. They humbly challenged the British Crown, sending great statesmen across the wide deep to present reasoned and impassioned appeals before the king and his court, but remarkably, to no avail. They were repeatedly slighted and shunned, the colonies sentenced and punished. "A long train of abuses and usurpations" could not, however, be forever endured. Finally, the injuries upon the law and the people went too far. The spirit of liberty in the hearts of the colonists rose up in defense. Freedom's leading spokesmen gathered in Philadelphia, and a decision was rendered -- impeachment. No, not the kind of impeachment we witnessed two years ago. Lacking that legal avenue, our forefathers pursued impeachment "by other means" -- the far less subtle approach of war. No crafty lawyers, trickster pollsters, party partisans and socialist-minded ministers would rescue this king. And after much sacrifice, much property loss, much bloodshed and many prayers, justice was finally served, liberty and equality won, a monarch was dethroned! Happily, the results of the conflict were not terrible but wonderful, and they were felt, not just in America, but throughout the world. Thomas Paine had insisted that we were not fighting a war for American independence alone, but for "the rights of mankind." And providentially, it seemed, the legal tables of the centuries were turned. The false maxim that "the king is law" was rigorously challenged by the American religious maxim that "the law is king." Indeed, the world now knew that the common man was not so common after all, that the idea of kings was "ridiculous," and that equality before the law was a mandate from heaven. Throughout the depth and breath of the land, early Americans recognized equality before God and the law as a religious principle. It was Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, who thundered the conviction that this equality was an "endowment" from our "Creator," something which no government had the right to ever revoke. This was so, taught the Rev. Abraham Williams (in a 1762 election sermon), because: "All men [are] naturally equal, [having] descended from a common parent (who is God)." Or as the apostle Peter weighed in: "God is no respecter of persons but hath made of one blood all nations under Heaven." God declared, and the Founders believed, men were equal. This equality, they felt, was divided into two parts: First, equal rights. The Ten Commandments laid out a plan for civil society that implied each man possessed unalienable rights. A. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" translated politically into a prohibition against kings, absolute power, above-the-law government officials, and any attempt by the state to mandate worship of the state. It insured that government was by the consent of the governed, who were, each of them, equally possessed of the same rights that any government official possessed. All powers held by public officials were only on temporary loan from the people. A failure to keep that trust so delegated would be, and should be, cause to renege those powers. B. Men and governments were likewise prohibited from preventing or interfering in any individual's worship of God -- the right to religious liberty. C. Men and government were prohibited from shedding innocent blood -- the right to life. D. Men and governments were prohibited from stealing or coveting other men's goods -- the right to property. Therefore, all mankind possessed an inalienable right to life, liberty and property. There were no exceptions. No one was above the law. All were subject to the law. All were equal. Second, equality before the law. As already alluded to, this equality as children of God, with equal rights, translated into equality before the law as well. Again from the biblical text the Founders read "All men will be judged according to their works." Justice demanded this. The Great Father of us all did not say just poor men, just those ill connected or just those ill educated were to be judged -- but all men, rich or poor, president or citizen, priest or parishioner, male or female. As there were to be no exceptions in the final judgment, early Americans believed that it was wrong to give two, or three, or four different sentences for the same crime, based on class status, political position or insider connections. A man would be punished according to his crimes, plain and simple, and in political affairs judged according to his fidelity to the Constitution, not according to his rank, his party or his political office. It should be noted that equality before the law as it pertained to the principles of justice demanded that the crimes of a government official were actually greater, since their effects were felt generally, and thus the punishment, commensurate with the size of the crime, was proportionately more severe. Such crimes demanded the contempt of the people, not their pardon. After all, as the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 declared: "[The government was organized] for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man." Therefore, it is both peculiar and disturbing, in our day, to hear of a rising blind sort of patriotism among us, to the point of religious and moral fervor, that cries, "My Country, My President, My Party, Come Hell or High Water!" Call it that newest of faiths even, "civil society," a system of beliefs which contends that elected officials should only be criticized by our votes, not by our words; that rigid views on moral and political issues is a national sin; that bipartisanship is a national virtue; that government officials who break the law ought not to be prosecuted if they are rendering a valuable service; and that anyone casting an eye of suspicion upon the federal government and its officials ought to be scorned, identified, singled out, ostracized, and perhaps disenfranchised or arrested as a troublemaker and potential terrorist. What is this religion, this morality, other than the religion and morality of fools, malefactors, cowards, sloths and kingmen? Taking the ancient counsel of the Apostle Paul -- to reverence the law and to be subject to the political powers that be -- they have gone to the polar extreme that it is morally correct to blindly reverence the ruler, even when the ruler tramples on the law he is oath-bound to uphold. This position Misses the Mark With Religion, encouraging passive citizenship on the one hand and intolerance for the vigilant citizen on the other. Nothing could serve the cause of tyranny and its evil author better. Paul's entreaty was an appeal to order, not blind subservience. A balanced, better principle of faith, espoused by an early American religious faith, was held in common by many: "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly." And yet if the rights were not thus protected, a leader of that same faith advised that we "[a]ct as the inflexible Romans, and hurl the miserable sycophant from his exaltation." President Teddy Roosevelt put it this way: "We hold that our loyalty is due the American Republic, and to all our public servants exactly in proportion as they efficiently serve the Republic. . . . Every man who parrots the cry of 'stand by the President' without adding the proviso 'so far as he serves the Republic' takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the king could do no wrong." In "The American Crisis," Thomas Paine similarly noted: "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." Concerning blind loyalists to the crown, he added: "Surely there must be something strangely degenerating in the love of monarchy, that can so completely wear a man down to an ingrate, and make him proud to lick the dust that kings have trod upon. A few more years, should you survive them, will bestow on you the title of 'an old man': and in some hour of future reflection you may probably find the fitness of Wolsey's despairing penitence -- "had I served my God as faithfully as I have served my king, he would not thus have forsaken me in my old age." There seems to be something hauntingly off the mark, something disturbingly irreligious, something terribly unmanly about the person who says, "My Country, My President, My Party, Come Hell or High Water!" For those who wish to find the mark, rather than miss the mark, with religion, ought not blind loyalties and patriotic sentiments to men, parties, political office and civil society be cast into the waste bin and replaced with eternal vigilance to religious principle, fixed laws, and our Heaven-inspired Constitution? Religion, manhood and a gratitude to the sacrifices of our forefathers requires it.
NewsMax contributing columnist Steve Farrell is the former managing editor of Right magazine, a widely published research writer, a former Air Force Communications Security manager, and a graduate student in constitutional law. Have a comment? Contact Steve at Cyours76@yahoo.com All of the essays in this section are copyrighted (c) 2001 by Steve Farrell and are published on this website with his permission. Enrich your life with a book about religion... Enrich your life with a religion magazine...
|
|||||||
|
Religion Resource Center Main Page |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.